1. All inspections are subject to quality assurance which includes a review of aspects of the inspection evidence and the draft inspection report. Some inspections are subject to enhanced quality assurance. This can include onsite or remote quality assurance by a monitor and/or a full or partial review of the inspection evidence.
  2. It is the responsibility of the inspection team to reach the provisional judgements at the end of the onsite inspection. Experienced inspectors are on duty to provide quality assurance support to inspectors. The reporting inspector will contact the inspector on duty if:
    1. the emerging evaluation of the inspection team is that one or more of the Standards is likely to be unmet. The inspector on duty will probe the evidence and provide constructive support and challenge to the evaluation process. The inspector on duty cannot conclude that a standard is met or unmet.
    2. the emerging evaluation of the inspection team is that there is a relative weakness in one or more of the Standards, but the Standards are met and the criteria for proportionality apply.
    3. the emerging evaluation of the inspection team is that the criteria for the award of a significant strength apply. The inspector on duty will probe the evidence and provide constructive support and challenge to the evaluation process. The inspector on duty cannot conclude that a standard is met or unmet. 
  3. Following the inspection, the reporting inspector is responsible for writing the inspection report in accordance with ISI's requirements regarding quality and clarity, and submitting the inspection evidence to ISI, within four days of the end of the onsite inspection.
  4. The inspection report and inspection evidence are quality assured by an editor. The editor provides feedback to the reporting inspector along with any suggested amendments to the report. The reporting inspector is responsible for responding to the editor's comments and suggestions promptly and making any necessary amendments to the inspection report in a timely manner.
  5. If the editor has serious concerns about the quality of the inspection report, the inspection judgments or the inspection evidence, the editor will refer the matter to the Director of Inspection Quality. The Director of Inspection Quality may consider that enhanced quality assurance is necessary, which may include a review of all the inspection evidence. If concerns persist, the Director of Inspection Quality will refer the matter to the Senior Director for National Inspections who will consider appropriate next steps, which could include, a change of judgements (if supported by the evidence) or deeming the inspection incomplete.
  6. Following quality assurance of the inspection report and inspection evidence, a draft version of the inspection report is sent to the school for factual accuracy comments. The school has four working days to respond to the factual accuracy check. The reporting inspector is responsible for considering and responding to the school's comments; making amendments to the report, where appropriate or explaining why suggested amendments are not appropriate.
  7. Following the inspection, the reporting inspector provides developmental feedback for the team inspectors about the quality of their work and their conduct. The team inspectors provide feedback on the process of the inspection and the leadership of the reporting inspector.
  8. ISI invites all schools to comment about their experiences of the inspection. ISI welcomes all feedback in order to develop and improve processes.
  9. ISI has a complaints process. As outlined in ISI’s complaints policy, school leaders should raise their concerns informally during the inspection with the reporting inspector or contact ISI within four term-time working days after the end of the onsite inspection to request a phone call.